2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-7-2008 

# U SA v . B rown P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4334

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . B r own" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 898. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/898NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 06- 4334

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RE GI NAL D B RO WN, A ppel l ant

____________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 04- cr - 00803) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le L e g ro m e D . D a v is Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 10, 2008 B e f o re : A M B R O , C H A G A R E S , an d G R E E N B E R G , C irc u it Judg es.

____________ ( Fi l ed: J ul y7, 2008)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. R egi nal d B r ow n appea l s hi s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of cr ack c ocai ne w i t h i nt ent t o di s t r i but e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( B ) . H e cl ai m s thatthe G overnm entpr es ent ed i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o fi nd thathe cons t ruct i vel ypos s es s ed theT he C our tnot ed thatt he drugs w er e “f l ui d, ” meani ng, s ol d w i t h a r el at i vel yqui ck 1 “tur n- ar ound. ” A ppendi x ( A pp. ) 304- 05. T he ves t s , on t he otherhand, coul d have be en in th e b a se m e n t f

o r a n ylen g th o f

tim e , inc lu d in g a tim e b e f o re th e a g e n ts e v e r b e g a n th e ir s ur vei l l ance , and coul d have be en pos s es s ed byper s ons w ho had ac ces s t o t he hous e at s o m e p o in t p ri o r t o th e a g e n ts ’ i n v e s tig a tio n o f th e p ro p e rt y . 2 d rug s in q u esti o n . A s h is co n tention is un p ersu asiv e, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s j udgm entof convi ct i on. I. A f ter a six -m o n th -lo n g in v e stig a tio n o f d ru g a c tiv ityin sid e a P h ilad e lp h ia reside n ce , p o li ce arrested R eg inald B row n sh o rt lyaf ter he left th e re side n ce . T h e o ff icers s u b s e q u e n t l ys e a r c h e d t h e p r o p e r t y , f i n d i n g 3 7 2 g r a ms o f

p o wd e rc o c a i n e , o v e r1 0 g r a ms o f c ra c k c o c a in e , as so rte d d ru g p a ra p h e rn a lia, a n d b o d ya rm o r. B ro w n w a s c h a rg e d w ith t hr ee c ount s : pos s es s i on of coc ai ne w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e, pos s es s i on of cr ack c ocai ne w ith inten t t o d istri b u te, an d p o sses sion o f b o d yarm o r as a co n v ict ed fe lon . A jury s ubs equent l yconvi ct ed B r ow n on t he drug char ges , and the D i s t r i ctC our tacqui t t ed B r ow n, bybench tr i al , on t he bodyarm orcount . O n appea l , B r ow n conce des the 1 s uffi ci encyof the evi dence conce r ni ng hi s pos s es s i on of the pow dercoca i ne and chal l enges onl yt he evi dence conce r ned hi s pos s es s i on of the cr ack c ocai ne. II . W e r evi ew B r ow n’ s s uffi ci ency - of- t he- evi dence ar gum ent“de novo a nd i ndepende nt l yappl [y ] t he s ame st andar d as the D i s t r i ctC our t . ” U ni t ed St at es v. B obb, 47 1 F . 3d 49 1, 49 4 (3d C i r. 20 06 ). A s such, w e revi ew the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost3

favor abl e t o t he pr os ecut i on t o det erm i ne w hetheranyr at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have found pr oof of gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubtbas ed on the ava i l abl e evi dence . See U n it ed S tat es v . L o p ez , 2 7 1 F . 3 d 4 7 2 , 4 8 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). “O n lyw h en the re co rd cont ai ns no evi dence , r egar dl es s of how i ti s w ei ght ed, fr om w hi ch the j urycoul d fi nd gui l t ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , m ayan appe l l at e courtover turn t he ver di ct . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M cN ei l l , 88 7 F . 2d 44 8, 45 0 (3d C i r. 19 90 ) ( qu oti ng B radom v. U nit ed S t at es, 4 3 1 F .2 d 1 3 9 1 , 1 4 0 0 (7 th C ir . 1 9 7 0 )) . T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 1291. III . A s th e d ru g s w e re n o t f o u n d o n B ro w n ’s p e rso n , the ju d g e p e rm itt e d th e ju ryto convi ctB r ow n bas ed on hi s cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on of the cr ack c ocai ne. C ons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on “r equi r es an i ndi vi dual t o have the pow erand i nt entt o exer ci s e both dom i ni on and contr ol overt he obj ecthe ors he i s char ged w i t h pos s es s i ng. ” U ni t ed St at es v. G ar th, 188 F. 3d 99, 112 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( addi ng thatthe fa ctthatot her s al s o have a cce s s t o an obj ectdoes notpr ecl ude a f i ndi ng of cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on) . M or eover , i n pr ovi ng cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on, “[i ] nfer ence s fr om es t abl i s hed fa ct s ar e ac cept abl e met hods of pr oof w hen no di r ectevi dence i s avai l abl e s o l ong as ther e exi s t s a l ogi cal and convi nci ng connec t i on betw een the fa ct s es t abl i s hed and the conc l us i on i nferr ed. T he fa ctthat e v id e n c e is c irc u m sta n tial d o e s n o t m a k e it l e ss p ro b a tiv e th a n d ire c t ev id e n c e .” M c N e ill ,4

8 8 7 F .2 d a t 4 5 0 . H er e, t her e i s a l ogi cal and convi nci ng connec t i on betw een the fa ct s es t abl i s hed and B r ow n’ s know i ng exer ci s e of domi ni on and contr ol overthe cr ack c ocai ne, s uch that t he j ur ycoul d pr oper l yhave f ound gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . T o begi n w i t h, t he re c o rd sh o w s th a t B ro w n e ith e r liv e d a t, or f re q u e n tlyv isited (a n d sto re d so m e o f h is bel ongi ngs at ) , t he r es i dence i n ques t i on. T he ow nerof the pr oper t y , J ani ne D avi s , had b e e n i n a r o ma n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p wi t h Br o wn a ts o me p o i n t . S h e a c k n o wl e d g e d th a tBr o wn had ac ces s t o t he ent i r e hous e, and i ndeed Brow n had a ke ythatunl ocked a padl ock on a bedr oom door . I n t hatbedr oom w as , i n pl ai n vi ew , a cl earpl as t i c bag on a bookcas e, cont ai ni ng fourone- ounce ba gs of coc ai ne and one quar t er - ounce ba g of coc ai ne. Pol i ce al s o found $400 on the s ame she l f, and on a l ow ers hel f theyfound a s hoe box cont ai ni ng ru b b e rg l o v e s , e mp t yZi p l o c b a g s , a n d a s ma l l s c a l e . I n th a ts a me a r e a o f th e b e d r o o m, p o lice re c o v e re d m u lti p le d o c u m e n ts th a t b e lo n g e d to B ro w n , inc lu d in g h is p a ss p o rt, chec kbooks , an i ns ur ance car d, and otherdocument s . A s ear ch of the ki t chen r evea l ed t he t ool s nece s s aryt o tur n pow dercoca i ne i nt o cr ack c ocai ne. Fur t herm or e, t he i nves t i gat i ng offi cer s t es t i fi ed that , dur i ng the s i x m ont hs of s u rv e illa n c e , th e ys a w n o a d u lt o th e r t h a n B ro w n a n d D a v is e n te r o r l e a v e th e re s id e n c e . Fi nal l y , t he j ur yw as ent i t l ed t o cr edi tthe homeow ner ’ s t es t i m onythats he di d notknow of and w as noti nvol ved i n anyof the drug di s t r i but i on act i vi t y . A s the G overnm ent per s uas i vel yar gues , “i tw oul d be i r r at i onal forthe j uryt o fi nd thatB r ow n pos s es s ed al l of5

t h e p o wd e rc o c a i n e a n d a l l o f t h e d ru g p a r a p h e r n a l i a a l l o v e rth e h o u s e , b u tth a ts o me ot herdrug deal er— nevers een i n s i x m onths of s ur vei l l ance — j us thappene d t o be s t or i ng hi s di s t r i but i on- s i zed qua nt i t i es of cr ack i n t he bathr oom of B r ow n’ s hous e. ” A ppel l ee B r . at33. A tt he veryl eas t , cons t rui ng the r ecor d i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , t her e i s s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tB r ow n’ s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of cra ck co ca ine w ith inten t t o d istri b u te. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n .